Notes on Traditional Catholicism

A number of false dichotomies often come to light when discussing traditional Catholicism, particularly with non-traditionalists. The most basic—and erroneous—distinction which is often made is between “obedient” and “disobedient” traditionalists. “Obedient traditionalists,” so the story goes, rejoice over the generosity of Summorum Pontificum (SP); “accept fully the Second Vatican Council” (whatever that means); and know to keep their traps shut with respect to concrete problems in the Catholic Church, particularly if those problems can be linked to certain shifts in mid-20th C. theology or ambiguous papal pronouncements. “Disobedient traditionalists,” on the other hand, will speak clearly, even forcefully, on the substantive superiority of the Tridentine Mass as compared to the Novus Ordo Missae. These same “disobedient traditionalists” are unashamed about pointing to problematic passages embedded in some of the conciliar texts while also standing firm against innovations such as the splitting of the pastoral from the doctrinal. In short, these traditionalists are “disobedient,” hence “bad,” because they attempt to exercise the right of open and frank discussion which, ostensibly, has been in play since the 1960s.

There are either either/or fallacies which get bandied about within traditional Catholicism itself. Some, for instance, hold that one is either an “Ecclesia Dei/SP traditionalist” (i.e., you attend the old Mass at a diocesan parish) or you’re an “SSPX traditionalist.” You have to decide; and once you have decided, you have made your “true loyalties” known for a lifetime. The problem with this perspective, which is prevalent in certain circles, is that it appears to presuppose, even if only lightly, that the Fraternity of St. Peter or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest belong to a different Church than the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). This is perhaps why some people feel that they can “hide out” in the SSPX, as if it were not part of that cancer-ridden Corpus Mysticum that “all those other Catholics” go to. I for one would like to think the Society would be appalled at such a notion. While it is true that the SSPX is “keeping its distance” so-to-speak from the epicenters of confusion and turmoil in the Church, that’s not the same as being “outside of the Church.” There are today, and always have been, numerous parishes, monasteries, orders, and dioceses which have chosen to board the windows and reinforce the doors in stormy times. In fact, there are more “locales” within the Church today doing just that than some people seem to realize. We should thank God such safe havens exist and ask Him to bless the establishment of many more.

Of course, traditionalism, like any movement, is hardly monolithic. There are many self-identified “trads” who, for reasons I cannot quite understand, find that it is perfectly acceptable to laud the Tridentine Mass, old devotions, and even the time-tested theology of St. Thomas while openly embracing radical forms of political, social, and economic liberalism. Any traditional Catholic worth his salt ought to know the social teachings of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Quas Primas should be, at the very least, on their annual reading list. And yet the vague and ill-defined movement of what I have called “Catholic libertarianism” has more than its fair share of traditional Catholics. Some might say these individuals are ill-formed or too caught up with the incorrect notion that “traditionalism” comes does to “liturgical aesthetics” (for some it does). That may explains some of it. I do believe, however, that the harder truth is that many of the traditionalists who accept the tenets of liberalism do so because they have been blinded by the “neo-Americanist” lie that somehow, someway, the political ordo established in 1776 and given final contours in 1789 can be rehabilitated into a virtuous republic directed toward the common good—if only we let the market do the moving and the government next-to-nothing. Such folks, well-intentioned though they may be, ought to be handed Christopher Ferrara’s Liberty: The God That Failed this Christmas.

As for “liturgical aesthetics” or just the liturgical aspects of traditional Catholicism, it is well known by now that there are some who consider the presence of a third Confiteor at Mass to be the ultimate litmus test of orthodoxy. There are also plenty of traditionalists who believe that their sanctity or, rather, the lack of sanctity they (wrongly) perceive in others has everything to do with the 1962 Missale Romanum. Granted, as Fr. John Hunwicke and many other thoughtful liturgical experts have noted, there are good grounds to have serious reservations concerning some aspects of the 1962 liturgical books; but the “1954-or-else” mentality has led a few too many to select a strange hill to die on. Faithful followers of the 1962 liturgical books have repeatedly stated that those books are the beginning, not the end, of the proper restoration of the Roman Rite. It’s a shame that their “liturgically cultured” despisers haven’t bothered to listen.

Some of what I have noted here points toward a project which I do not feel competent or strong enough to undertake, namely the rethinking and further appreciation of what it means to be a traditional Catholic. This is 2014, not 1974. A large part of me suspects that some of the falsities surrounding, if not bound up with, traditional Catholicism stems from trying to fit our knowledge of the current crisis into shopworn categories while deploying moth-eaten arguments to combat them. This is not to say that we need an entirely new “traditionalism”; that would be absurd. What it does mean, however, is that traditional Catholics, particularly of this and the forthcoming generation, need to better understand the pettiness of what often divides us while keeping a clear eye on the troubling new forces which have been brought to bear against Christ’s Holy Church. Owen White, when profiling yours truly, referred to me as a “neo-traditionalist.” I have some idea of what he meant by that, but not a complete one. Fleshing that idea out further, not for the sake of my own self-designation but for the strengthening of the traditional movement as a whole, should be shifted to the front burner as soon as possible.

I suspect most, if not all, of these priests would defend themselves on the grounds that they are acting out of necessity and at the request of the lay faithful of the Catholic Church. I am not sure that is disobedience sensu stricto.

I would not ascribe the word “false” to the dichotomy betwixt obedient and “disobedient” traditionalists; I have seen it with my own eyes and it was one of the reasons for my own rejection of RC traditionalism altogether. On the one hand are the “obedient to the magisterium, the Church can do no wrong, it was all the filthy modernists who undermined the Council’s fault” types. And on the other were people like me. I had no qualms about criticizing obvious abuses in the Church, often perpetrated deliberately BY the Church. Then I found myself in a “traditionalist” church community. I did not agree wholeheartedly with everybody there (I seldom, if ever, have…in any context) but such is life, I had discovered a church where I felt comfortable going to on Sundays, etc, etc. The crux of the matter was the liturgy itself. Do we remain obedient to the Church in matters liturgical or do we bend the rules for the sake of tradition? It was in this sense that objective tradition was thrown out in favour of obedience and I was thrust out like a pariah.

In order to affirm a false dichotomy as true, you resort to straw men. I don’t know of any serious person who holds to the “Church can do no wrong” line in the way that you mean. It seems you take the claim that the “Church can do no wrong” to mean that no priest, bishop, or pope can make imprudent, even wrongheaded and scandalous, decisions. Of course the Church’s leadership can behave in such a manner, even in their official capacity, but that does not mean the Church’s indefectibility is impeached. And by indefectibility, I mean what the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia means: “By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change, which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the Sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.”

If liturgy is ever “the crux of the matter” in things ecclesiastical, then something has gotten lost in translation. The liturgy is important and the Mass is central to the life and vitality of the Church, but grousing about rubrics and aesthetics betrays a rather low view of both prayer and the sacraments. Yes, in all things we should strive to worship God duly and reverently while also ensuring that our liturgy is not marred by false spiritualities, theologies, and doctrines. An eye toward tradition must be maintained, as should continuity with the practices of our forebears to the extent those practices are defensible in the light of what we believe as Catholics. However, having one’s faith crushed under the feather of an omitted Collect at Mass or the dispensing of certain rubrics in the breviary which have been, and still remain, virtually unknown to most Catholics who have ever lived strikes me as both absurd and sad.

Please keep in mind that I write this as someone who is strongly in favor of reinstituting the old Holy Week liturgy; restoring the full set of readings at Matins (or, if abbreviations are deemed necessary, at least doing so in an intelligent manner); allowing for more commemorations at Mass and on days when there is an overlap of feasts; etc. I prize my 1945 edition of the Breviarium Romanum and wish that it, not the 1962 edition, was still normative. However, having prayed the 1962 edition for some time, I cannot say with any hint of seriousness that those who do so are imperiling their souls; behaving as “lesser Catholics”; or are in any way, shape, or form wrong for doing so. Similarly, I find it ridiculous — and a waste of time — for traditional Catholics who are “obedient to 1962” to fret when they hear rumors of priests using a 1954 altar Missal. There are bigger fish to fry.